Ecosystem Analysis

Ecosystem Analysis of Wolfgang Schoberth's Argument

Citation

• Object of Analysis: The cited scholarly literature (monographs and articles) in the footnotes of Wolfgang Schoberth's "»Theology today«" (2025).
• Corpus: Approximately 25 unique scholarly sources extracted from 38 footnotes.

Scope and Corpus

This analysis examines the bibliographic corpus cited in Wolfgang Schoberth's paper, "Theology today." Its purpose is to qualitatively assess the academic network of conversation in which his argument is situated, and to evaluate the balance of that conversation in terms of regional, linguistic, and scholarly traditions. This analysis does not present quantitative metrics but focuses on a narrative interpretation of the qualitative signals revealed by the citation patterns.

Citation, Institutional, and Regional Overview

Schoberth's citation corpus displays the distinct characteristic of a German-centric philosophical-theological dialogue. The overwhelming majority of citations are to German-language authors (e.g., Habermas, Rentsch, Kambartel, Schwöbel) and works from prominent German publishers (Suhrkamp, Mohr Siebeck, De Gruyter). This clearly indicates that the argument is deeply rooted in the intellectual-historical context of post-Kantian German idealism and critical theory.

Among Anglophone authors, Charles Taylor and George A. Lindbeck are cited prominently, but they too are scholars deeply engaged with continental European philosophical debates. The journal Kerygma und Dogma (KuD) is cited, a leading German journal of systematic theology. Overall, the corpus exhibits a strong focus on a dialogue situated within the specific ecosystem of German-North American critical theory and post-liberal theology.

Authority Dependency and Polarization Signals

The structure of the argument reveals an overwhelmingly high dependency on the authority of Jürgen Habermas. Habermas is not merely a cited source; he functions as the 'authority node' providing the core concepts (communicative reason, post-metaphysical thinking) and the entire framework for Schoberth's argument. While this adds philosophical depth, it also entails the risk that Schoberth's theology inherits the inherent limitations of Habermas's theoretical framework (e.g., its secularist presuppositions).

Polarization signals, indicating a disconnect between scholarly schools, are also detectable. Schoberth's corpus shows almost no direct engagement with major contemporary works from evangelical theology, Catholic theology, or with liberation and feminist theologies. His argument proceeds in the language of a specific school—'critical theory'—and active cross-citation with other theological 'languages' from outside this school is absent.

Ecosystem Signal: Strong dependency on German critical theory (especially Habermas). Disconnected from dialogue with other theological traditions (Evangelicalism, Catholicism, Liberation Theology).

Cartel Suspicions (if any)

While the term 'cartel' would be an overstatement, a tendency toward closed co-citation within the specific academic community of 'German systematic theology and philosophy' is observable. The cited authors (e.g., Rentsch, Kambartel, Jüngel, Schwöbel) are mostly professors of philosophy or systematic theology at German universities, forming an academic network that shares specific problematics and cites one another's work.

This can, of course, be explained by natural phenomena such as 'thematic focus' or 'language barriers.' It is natural to engage intensively with experts in a field when dealing with a specific philosophical problem. However, it is worth noting that if this tendency intensifies, it could create an 'echo chamber' effect, making it difficult for external critiques or new perspectives to penetrate.

Balancing Recommendations

While Schoberth's argument is highly sophisticated and powerful on its own terms, its validity and scope of application could be expanded through dialogue with a broader academic ecosystem. The following are recommendations for strengthening its bibliographic balance:

1. Engage with Opposing Traditions: The argument's defensive strength could be enhanced by directly citing and refuting critiques of Habermas's 'communicative theory' from Catholic theology (e.g., Johann Baptist Metz's political theology) or Anglophone evangelical philosophy (e.g., Alvin Plantinga's Reformed epistemology).
2. Incorporate Non-German/Non-Anglophone Literature: Debates on 'publicness' and 'reason' have been developed in very different ways in French philosophy (e.g., Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida) and Latin American liberation theology (e.g., Gustavo Gutiérrez). Including these sources would allow for a richer and more critical reflection on the concept of 'publicness' itself.
3. Reflect Current Research Trends: Discussions on 'post-metaphysics' and the 'post-secular' have been active in the last five years. Adding recent articles from relevant journals (e.g., Modern Theology, International Journal of Public Theology) would bolster the argument's currency.

Schoberth's argument demonstrates a high level of achievement within a specific ecosystem. However, through the bibliographic expansions suggested above, it could gain persuasiveness with a wider audience and develop into a more robust argument against potential critiques.

Balancing Recommendation: Cite works from Catholic/Evangelical theology, incorporate French/Latin American philosophy/theology, and add recent articles from journals such as Modern Theology.